How to Critique Interview

During a performance:

While watching a performance, taking physical notes is impractical. So, it is recommended that mental notes be taken for what went well, what resonated with you, and if there were choices made by the artistic team that made the performance effective. However, mental notes are not infallible. So, after a performance, a critic may input all their mental notes onto their phone or take them down somewhere. After the performance, for an enhanced critique, take a few moments to just think about the performance or talk to someone about it, then just get writing.

Preliminary:

Sometimes, it’s important to know a little before your show that you’re doing a critique on (knowing the background, if there’s music, who’s the composer, etc). Consider finding a brief synopsis and the genre of the performance (due to the many styles of a certain genre) without spoiling yourself.

Writing a critique:

When you are criticizing a performance or making a statement about it, make sure to think about your targeted audience. Critics go into a show without much anticipation; however, it is their opinion of a single performance in the run of the show that truly matters. In simpler terms, it's one person's perspective of a single show. It is important to remember that the goal of a critic is not to promote or to pan a show, but to genuinely input their opinion on what was successful and what choices were made that weren't successful; it's more like an assessment of the show. As well, it is not a good idea to watch a performance that may bias you (such as having connections with the production, cast, crew, etc); therefore, one must be nonpartisan. To reiterate this essential point, writing a critique is an "Assessment of your own personal opinion of a single performance in the run of the show." Remember to keep your impartiality and focus. When writing the critique, focus on the overall presentation, not just "I liked her vocals," but think more on the lines of whether that performance resonated with you, did it impact you, did you care about the main characters? Characters typically go through a journey; they change from the beginning, so, with this in mind, did the director make you care about the characters the way that they were portrayed?

At the beginning of your critique, it's recommended that you include a pun, which can be used as a title. Additionally, it can also serve as a hook that grabs someone's attention, enticing them with strategic wordplay.

Examples 1:

For Tell Tale Harbour, which the critic watched, he mentioned to me how the cast had so much energy... However, there was not much to it then; the characters were "wooden" and "one-dimensional." As well, the performance had the overall sense of being very "fluffy" and "light," meaning that it was only meant to entertain due to the lack of characterization. This example covers an essential point, which is that we have to consider the intent of the production: is it to entertain, to inform, to educate, to make you laugh/cry? Whichever it is, did they succeed in incorporating the elements (set, lighting, prop, etc) to work together to spotlight this intent, or did it result in conflicting elements? As well, consider the performance's intended impact on the audience.

Example 2:

Jersey Boys was described by the critic as disappointing. Firstly, they possessed good vocals; however, that is diminished by the amateur production qualities, such that ineffective props were used and the set was small. Besides that, the actors were losing balance on stage, where they tripped over, and their choreography included a performance with their backs to the audience. Although their costumes showcase ostentation, it can nevertheless be dismissed that they were rumpled with seams unstitched. Though it is hard to praise the great actors without mentioning the production. This shows that performers' conditions impact a critic's interpretation of what they see.

Example 3:

The critic emphasized the importance of starting with the positives, since every show has that quality, and that should be mentioned because the critic is not there to hate on the performance. Then, after mentioning the positives, you can get into the weaker points, the parts that are not as powerful. For instance, Ransackling Joy was mainly a positive review that focused on the successes of the performance. However, Dangerous Liaisons started with a description of how the costumes were amazing, and the lighting was alright, but the performance of "dull" actors combined with the "deadly slow" pacing of the performance showcased the weak adaptation in comparison to the original production. There was also no sense of direction, all emphasizing towards the point that this performance is not as good as it should have been (it does not match the standard that's required for Mirvish, Stratford, and other famous venues).

Example 4:

The Two Children's adaptation of Peter Pan, Wendy, and A Wrinkle in Time, a play intended for entertaining younger kids, turned into a massive confusion for its audience, where the kids watching had to ask their parents what was going on. That performance, as described by the critic, lacked direction and did not land with the targeted audience. Although this performance caused bewilderment for many, it is impossible to ignore the amazing actors who were cast by not-so-good directors, causing them to appear lacklustre. This ties back to casting, where critics have to ponder whether the director's casting choice was justified for the performance (are the actors suited for their roles?). Similarly, for Gaslight, there is a character who must be portrayed as creepy. Though this quickly turned around when the height difference between the two characters caused a physical imbalance, creating a conflict where audiences are confused about which character is the creepy character.

Example 5:

Another notable performance that the critic watched was A Tale of Moby Dick; for this critique, he focused on the exceptional usage of puppetry. The puppets were life-size characters held up by puppeteers who were in black. What was truly mesmerizing for him was that as the puppeteers moved closer to the audience, the puppets increased in size; vice versa, when the puppeteers moved farther upstage, the smaller puppets got smaller. This critique showed that critics must also be open to non-traditional forms of performance.

(The following interview has been paraphrased for conciseness):

QUESTION 1: When reviewing shows, are there specific aspects of production that you focus on more in comparison to others? (Props, costume, lighting, sound, makeup, etc)

CRITIC: Everything should be focused on: the effectiveness of light, the costumes, the directorial choices, the lighting, and the sound. However, don't force yourself to mention these elements if they are not really important or necessary. Going back to the makeup aspect, do not focus on that as much.

Question 2: Advice/strategy on how to notice/analyze multiple actors’ performance at the same time, given that you can’t rewind or record

CRITIC: If it is a small cast, mention all of the actors because you can get a good sense of the stronger actors in comparison to others. If the cast is big (ranging from 15-20), focus on the leads. As well, for ensemble members, mention how they're doing with their "smaller parts." If someone is doing something amazing with their part, you should mention it. If you were to, for example, mention the great energy of most ensemble members, do not list out their names but just refer to the others as "...plus the other members of the ensemble."

Question 3: Would you give them tips on what to improve on, since with many shows, they’re still on, so potentially, if a director reads that something is not working out from several reviews, can they reevaluate that?

CRITIC: Do give tips; however, make sure that it's not influenced by other people's reviews that you've read before writing your own (going back to the first points of writing a critique). It is worth knowing that directors would not apply the change to their performance; however, they may not be invited back to direct.

Conclusion:

Therefore, through this interview with the critic, the biggest takeaway is that you have an open mind while watching performances, and remember that your critique is an

"Assessment of your own personal opinion of a single performance in the run of the show." Do not be biased and always start on a positive note to the critiques, as there is always *something* that worked.